Official: Toyota FT-1 Concept / First New Supra Prototype Spotted!

[Rampage]

Originally Posted by Racecomp Engineering

This new Supra is going to make a very good-looking racecar and I can't wait to see it in World Challenge and GT racing.

- Andrew

I hope you are right but I am not holding my breath. If it is not NASCAR or LeMans Toyota does not seem to be interested.

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Rampage

I hope you are right but I am not holding my breath. If it is not NASCAR or LeMans Toyota does not seem to be interested.

Well they haven't really had anything to enter in a GT race for a while.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

Many seem to have forgotten, didn't know or don't understand what this implies.


It is not a sports car. It was never planned to be a sports car. It will not be easy to turn it into a sports car.


It should be spectacular for the purpose that it is being designed for though.

I guess one could argue that it was designed / marketed as a sports car at one point.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbCJZ46Er4"]1981 TOYOTA CELICA XX Ad - YouTube[/ame]

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by krayzie

I guess one could argue that it was designed / marketed as a sports car at a point in time.

It evolved well beyond that before it's demise.

And technically that is a Celica anyway.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

It evolved well beyond that before it's demise.

And technically that is a Celica anyway.

To me Celica XX is what the roots of the Supra should be, similar with the SC/LC originating from the Soarer.

If Toyota wanted to go back in time to the early 80's spiritually like they did with the twins and "Fun To Drive Again", with this blueprint the new Supra would be again marketed as "Super Grand Sport" and the new LC being "Super Gran Turismo".

Now this was the GT car of that same era.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIUQYd_kjBk"]トヨタ　åˆ�代 Z10型　ソアラ（SOARER）トヨタ エレクトãƒ* マルãƒ�ビジョンCM　1985å¹´ - YouTube[/ame]

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by krayzie

To me Celica XX is what the roots of the Supra should be, similar with the SC/LC originating from the Soarer.

If Toyota wanted to go back in time to the early 80's spiritually like they did with the twins and "Fun To Drive Again", with this blueprint the new Supra would be again marketed as "Super Grand Sport" and the new LC being "Super Gran Turismo".

Now this was the GT car of that same era.

That is the whole thing. They are not going back to a certain decade or even to the first versions. They are taking the cars back to what people liked the most. The early Celica Supras were fun in their day but they were greatly outclassed by the stand alone versions that followed in the 90s. That is what they are going back to and trying to emulate.
If they were trying to stick close to the originals then the FRS would be a souped up two door Corolla not what we got.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I thought your point was that adding weight made a car "better" in all ways? That remains false. Yes the GT will weigh more but it will still be as light as they can possibly make it while still giving it what it needs to play with the big boys.

Wow, you must think so little of me to say such a thing, an absolute, which I don't think I ever did. No worries, I can handle the ad hominems and misrepresentations.

[Silver Supra]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

....I want to keep talking about the benefits weight has for traction on a daily driven supercar by a non-professional driver, but if I don't concede the last word this will keep going. In the end we will have to see what Toyota brings.

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

To add a few more things about weight and performance...

....
Will weight in general help with traction when aero is lacking? Maybe.

Adding weight can very well lead to better stopping, turning and accelerating. ....

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Wow, you must think so little of me to say such a thing, an absolute, which I don't think I ever did. No worries, I can handle the ad hominems and misrepresentations.

These are not ad hominems but rebuttals to your earlier statements. No one is attacking you but your general comments about weight and car performance, and your repeated referrals to the ridiculous statements about weight and downforce in that referred article that you complained "no one could read".

Weight is with a car always, at any speed, at any position. Downforce should vary with speed and should be controllable. They are in no way alike.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Silver Supra

These are not ad hominems but rebuttals to your earlier statements. No one is attacking you but your general comments about weight and car performance, and your repeated referrals to the ridiculous statements about weight and downforce in that referred article that you complained "no one could read".

Weight is with a car always, at any speed, at any position. Downforce should vary with speed and should be controllable. They are in no way alike.

So I can be quoted saying that adding stuff like larger brakes or a turbo kit leads to better performance at the cost of some weight gain (this is a fact we all accept, and there are only several acceptions to it being an absolute). And I also can be quoted saying that weight can be good even if power to weight ratio is constant; in other words, a car at 4000lbs at 7lbs per hp may be better than a car at 3000lbs that has 7lbs per hp, and I gave arguments and examples (this point has been refuted as an absolute that I am wrong, and has been misrepresented then argued against, or strawmaned).

At no time did I give any absolutes. At no time was I suggesting someone should toss sand bags in their trunk and something like that would improve handling. I get that people love to attack others on the internet and will interpret whatever they read into whatever they want to believe it says so they can have their fun. I get that. But it isn't polite.



To the Supra:

I'm hoping this is a true GT car with ample power and with comfort for touring, and with big potential for power gains. I get there is a large trend for a car to prove itself on the track, so we see the extremes of tech in cars like the NSX and holy trinity cars. I see push back from the groups calling for a back-to-basics wanting more light weight and simple cars with examples like the 86 and 911R. Hopefully it doesn't lose its identity shooting for low weight or ending up the size of a cramped two seater roadster, and hopefully it isn't as painfully complicated as the current NSX. Im not expecting it to be as over-built as the mkiv but im hoping the glass sealing for when the engine, tranny or diff goes is decent for tuning and moding potential.

[Irace86.2.0]

https://www.carthrottle.com/post/nzq4y7e/

Article I found today. Im curious if people would prefer the straight six or some v6 or some hybrid like the NSX. Having owned two mkiv Supras and other straight six cars, I'm hoping for the straight six. True to its history and with that same straight six sound and feel. Im wondering if BMW has it to do a 3.3-3.5 liter twin turbo version of the M3/M4 engine.

[krayzie]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

If they were trying to stick close to the originals then the FRS would be a souped up two door Corolla not what we got.

[krayzie]

I think Bimmer fucked up this new Supra's supposedly sleek shape big time.

It's too bubbly and reminds me of this:

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by krayzie

Not sure I understand your point....

[Slammillionaire]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

If they were trying to stick close to the originals then the FRS would be a souped up two door Corolla not what we got.

I think people are forgetting that toyota didn't look solely to the AE86 for inspiration. A lot of the design cues were inspired by the 2000gt. Keeping this in mind, I'd say they did pretty well bringing the originals into the modern era.